Talk:.50 BMG/Archives/2013/October

This is factually inaccurate. They are not equivalents, which would imply they are different things but have the same value. ".50 BMG" and "12.7 x 99 mm NATO" are different words for the same thing. To give an analogy -- a £1 coin is equivalent to two 50p coins, having the same monetary value, but is not the same thing. -- Cabalamat 00:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many inch/metric calibers may be very close to each other dimensionally, but not exactly interchangeable, and the military (metric) caliber might be loaded a bit hotter than the inch (civilian) caliber. (See .308 Win vs 7.62x51 NATO.) So .. yeah, maybe, but maybe not. :p Lihan161051 (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no "maybe" about it. The 12.7mmx99 NATO *IS* the .50 BMG. There is no "inch (civilian) caliber" issue here. The original name for the cartridge was ".50 Browning" as it was an American round and the US military used inch measurements at the time. The "12.7mmx99" nomenclature was added later when the EXACT SAME CARTRIDGE, fired in US-MADE M2HB BROWNING MACHINEGUNS, was standardized by NATO.

These make it a lot easier to compare rounds from energy perspectives and such. Why is it so difficult to find these on Wikipedia?

The problem is there is so much variance in loads. I can quote Hornady's statistics on their loads, which would give a rule of thumb, but really you need to look at

Avriette

07:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

While there is certainly a wide variance in loads, there are still certain ranges that could be listed. For example, there are common min and max loads and min and max velocities that can easily be taken from a reloading book, plus one or more "typical" loads. For example, the .45 ACP takes bullets from 155 to 260 grains, with typical loads of 185 grains at 1000 fps, 200 at 900, and 230 at 850. These could easily (and should be required to) be referenced, from, say, the Speer reloading manual, or Federal Cartridge Company website. Maybe a template that requires a reference for each entry, and includes a standard "don't try this without a reliable reloading reference handy" disclaimer? scot 22:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't blow your head/hand/whatever off, these are approximate figures, etc but yeah, I like that. I don't have a copy of the Speer manual. Would using Hornady's numbers work as well? I don't think Federal ships a, for example, 50 BMG. I could put the template together and see if those involved in WP:Weaponry like it...

Avriette

01:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Speer, Hornaday, Federal, Norma, military specs, whatever's handy and reputable. My Speer manual is a decade and a half out of date (it's a hand-me-down from my father) but it'll do for anything old enough to be covered (does have 10mm, doesn't cover .41 AE or .40 S&W). Even the powder makers' websites might be a good source if they have some load data online--I know they hand out freebie manuals for their powders. Pressures would be nice, too, either in PSI or CUP. Could also add a +P section as an option. I've never tried making a template before, but if you'll get it started, I'm sure I can lend a hand. scot 05:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your best source of ball/mass/velocity charts is probably going to Cartridges of the World. The reloading data sheets on Accurate Arms website puts out PSI/CUP info on all cartridges listed. --70.160.160.175 06:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

your best source of ball/mass/velocity is TM43-0001-27. It should NEVER be used as reloading data as its specifications could damage some rifles as it is a specification for machineguns, and military produced weapons and ammunition. I have included a link to it in this 50 BMG article with my discussions of case chamber pressure. - B4Ctom1 21:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For the .50 BMG cartridge, there is no SAAMI spec, only NATO spec. Those handloading for bolt action rifles do not load to the NATO spec for pressure, machinegun ammo is too hot. There are basic load guidelines for the .50 BMG, but the usual procedure is to start with a minimum load and slowly work up, extrapolating the load range maximum, or at least an accurate shooting "comfort zone", by being on the lookout for high pressure indications, and knowing how to read them. This is NOT for the inexperienced reloader. Military surplus components and powder can also vary by a significant margin. Whenever anything is changed in the equation, the load workup MUST be repeated. ( 00:57, February 1, 2006 User:Goneballistic )

The "NATO specs" are the same as the loading data for bolt-action rifles. Stop spreading misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.149.143.200 (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

and has not been replaced as the standard caliber for western vehicle mounted machine guns - hmm? I can't think of any British Army vehicles ever carrying a .50 calibre gun except as a spotting rifle. GraemeLeggett 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeha, I think that's better as "american." While the fifty is pretty common out there, the Europeans in particular are using more modern designs.

Avriette

18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a good article but for someone not familiar with ammunition it can be a bit confusing. I know the .50 BMG is a huge cartridge but I'm not sure how huge. Is there any pictures out there of this scaled with something like a cigarette or anything small enough?

Here you go. Ry Jones 18:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be better, IMO, to snap one with a ruler, a .338, a 7.62 nato, a 5.56 nato, and a 7.62 soviet. -- Cannibalicious!

In

Mythbusters do not carry out very scientific tests. Far less powerful rounds can penetrate farther than 3 feet. CynicalMe 02:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have fired a BB or more through about foot of water or more. Dudtz 9/26/06 7:43 PM EST

The more powerful a bullet is the less it will travel when in contact with water. The rapid decelleration on the bullet litterally rips it apart. Low velocity projectiles like pistol rounds and BBs do have very much power behind them compared to other rounds so the forces are less when they hit water. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 67.170.56.68 (talk

) 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Yeah...in the same "mythbusters" episode mentioned above, a shotgun round (extremely low mussel velocity as compared to the .50) penetrated through the entire testing mechanism. If I recall correctly, low powered rounds do penetrate deeper, since they are not destroyed by the rapid deceleration of water. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 12:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not always about Power Either. Sometimes its about the round. Had they used the AP .50 BMG round, it would have went all the way through the pool, period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.181.98 (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the .50 BMG AP round would *not* "have went all the way through the pool." The very high velocity would have resulted in the projectile yawing and rapidly losing velocity even if it did not break-up.

Right now,

Yep. And maybe also to the .500 S&W, which is also a .50 caliber, though it's generally called a "500". scot 13:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. They are both(all three) .50 call, though used in diffrent weapons. DannyBoy2k 21:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I own The Desert Eagle .50AE and some .50BMG.

The ammo is EXTREMELY Different, with the only thing in common being the diameter of the round. If you took every bullet with the same diameter and grouped them together, you would have a mess.

I find it quite frustrating that nowhere in the Wiki is there a listing of common masses for individual rounds. I am trying to formulate a table for WWII fighter aircraft 3 second weight-of-fire. This will allow the individual to get a good perspective on the relative lethality of each aircraft if you found yourself in its sights. With the rate of fire and mass of each round this would be a fairly simple task, but it looks like only half the data is out there. There must have been a standard military specification for the load out on these rounds. Wplemenos 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the .50 BMG is not a single round--there's ball ammo, tracer, AP, the Raufuss dual purpose high explosive incendiary AP, the match grade stuff snipers use. If you look around on government sites, you can probably find the designation for the ammo used in aircraft guns at that time, and find specs for it; and be sure to factor in the tracer mix. Try starting here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/50.htm scot 23:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The common US aircraft gun, the AN-M2 M3 commonly fired at 600-1200 rounds per minute in comparison to the 450-550 of the regular M2 (this info from the

If the aircraft was firing 1 gun at 600 rounds per minute, or 10 rounds per second, or 19000 grains per second. There are 7000 grains in one pound so, that would be 2.7 pounds (1.22 kilos) per second. This would be 8.1 pounds (3.67 kilos) for a 3 second burst. Multiply this times the number of guns in a fighter (either 4 or 6 depending) to come up with a wieght loss for a 600 rpm rate of fire. Multiply that times 2 for the other end of the spectrum with 1200 rpm.

A

As a clarification, I had cartridge collector and writer Keith Pagel weigh a few aircraft links to double check my weight estimation above of 200 grains per link. He responded that after weighing a few they range from 273 to 275 grains. I thought it would be good to be thorough. - B4Ctom1 17:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have used an average of the case pressures listed in TM43-0001-27 specifications. This average reflects all of the standard rounds including the SLAP variants and Mk211. This average does not include the data for the low pressure smaller case dimension spotter rounds, the plastic cased low pressure practice only rounds, or the extra pressure test test round. This is the only specification I could find so if you see an ANSI, SAAMI, or CIP specification feel free to add them, preferrably ahead of this Nato/US MIL specification.

Since the US developed/invented this round, I would say its safe to say they may call for the specification though

Fifty Caliber Shooters Association Member - B4Ctom1 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I created a case diagram and then used commonly accepted dimensions. If you find fault with a dimension listed please consider that this is a "rough" dimension and that many other members may not agree with your request for a small change to a dimension. If it is a glaring measurement mistake then by all means I will change it.

I could not get the dimension image into the article listed next to the case dimension paragraph so I had to delete some of the comparison and the "bullet jacket" photo entries. I am hoping to later come back and make a "comparisons" paragraph dedicated specifically to these photos. Some might argue that multiple comparison images might be redundant in this article.

Also an image of a separated jacket from a 50 BMG round is interesting, but I'm not sure if it belongs in a wiki article. - B4Ctom1 07:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki entries should be created for "Fifty Caliber Shooters Association", "Fifty Caliber Institute", and the "Very High Power" magazine. The Gnome 11:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Before we get into an edit war lets discuss this matter here. First issue - do we agree that in accordance with Wikipedia policy that SI units are preferred? I don't see any problem with converting thousands of an inch to hundredths of a millimetre - the order of precision is similar and calibres are commonly converted like that (.308" = 7.62mm, .224" = 5.56mm and so on) in the case of this cartridge it just happens to be that the next figure in 12.7mm is 0 and is thus omitted. As far as statistics like muzzle velocity and energy are concerned, I would agree that the number of significant figures - in both US and SI units - is excessive. Roger (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

SI units aren't really preferred. Per

Looking over the level of precision again in detail, the gross changes in precision seem to be a result of the infobox itself (a couple changes of two or three sig figs are in it), not the in-text conversions (which stay within 1 sig fig). So I suppose there's no problem there (though as you mentioned, the velocities seem strangely precise). --Xanzzibar (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This IP address' 189.68.194.36 contributions changed many of the clearly imperial cited sources for for such rounds as the .45 ACP (don't get more imperial/American than that) for some really odd need to have metric first even when doing so introduced errors. This is a firearms article not quantum physics! 76.234.166.151 (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I really think the units of measure should be based on where the object was invented out of respect for the inventor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.181.98 (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone reading this has access to the NATO Stanag document that specifies this cartridge it would be interesting to compare the dimensions/specs given in this article. The Stanag is of course the authorotative source, it unfortunately does not appear to be available online. (Would something as mundane as cartridge specs be classified information?) Roger (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In US service the cartridge is called the ".50 caliber"; the NATO nomenclature is "12.7mmx99." There is no need to obsess about trying to convert into SI with a high degree of precision---anyone who is actually concerned with using the rounds knows what it's called, and anyone trying to manufacture the stuff is using technical data packages that provide quite specific dimensions in whichever system the manufacturer desires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.149.143.200 (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Power section states the energy of the 30-06 round low by a thousand foot-pounds. Cite it or fix it. 24.252.195.3 (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Article reassessed and graded as start class.

.50 BMG, being a round in continuous mass production for nearly a hundred years, currently including many different bullet types, with a proven track record of putting really big holes in really big objects, including at the longest range of any man-portable rifle, SEEMS to me like a complete no-brainer for hunting elephant, rhino, buffalo, bison, bear, pretty much anything bigger than a horse. When you additionally consider that a number of manufacturers are producing magazine-fed "sniper"-grade rifles, both in bolt-action and semiautomatic, for a fraction of the cost of these horrendously expensive "big game rifles", I would expect that there would be swarms of hunters all over Africa blowing away animals left and right with these things. So is there any more information about this? There's only a single, completely vague (and unsupported) sentence. Is it catching on, and if not, does anybody know why? JDS2005 (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am the one who added the cite needed tag to the "single, completely vague (and unsupported) sentence". So far nobody has come up with a citation to show that it is used for hunting at all. The calibre has a number of problems: 1. The big game species, elephant, buffalo, bear etc. are usually hunted at very short ranges (often under 50m). The hunter often has to take a quick offhand shot at a moving target, which is not easy (impossible) to do with a 25 pound 6 ft long rifle. Not even Rambo could fire an accurate shot from a fifty under those conditions. 2. The number of countries where civilian ownership of a .50Br firearm is legal can be counted on one hand (with fingers to spare). Roger (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well that makes it a little more clear...thanks! JDS2005 (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want the REALLY big hunting calibers, look at things like the

.45-70 Government "Hammerhead", loaded with a 530 grain hard cast, flat nose solid, out-penetrated even the mighty .500 NE and .458 Winchester Magnum solids, traveling nearly five feet through wet newspaper.[1] And that's a 135 year old cartridge, cambered in a 7.5 pound lever action rifle, whose design is also over a century old.[2] scot (talk

) 15:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Locally I have seen 50 BMG caliber rifles fired from the target range bench for long range target shooting by hobbyists with large budgets. Also I have noted no local crime reports involving firearms in .50 BMG. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In the section on "Cartridge dimensions" is the following sentence:

However, some other countries produce the ammunition with Berdan primers that have two flash holes.,[2] the U.S. Army Ammunition Data Sheets — Small Caliber Ammunition, not including plastic practice, short cased spotter, or proof/test loads, is 54,923 PSI (378 MPa or 3,787 bar).

This makes no sense; it looks like a section was deleted from the middle. I don't even know what it's trying to say, or I'd try to fix it. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

76.66.198.171 (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This sentance claims that the round was orginaly dremt up by john browinng as a response to a AA requirement. It needs a citation so i decided to look for one, but after doing a little googling i found two websites (http://blogonomicon.blogspot.com/2005/07/brief-history-of-50-bmg-cartridge.html http://ammoguide.com/?catid=28) which both say that it was a response to the american experince of heavy amuniton used in anti-tank rifles in WWI.

The round was conceptualized during World War I by John Browning in response to a requirement for an anti-aircraft weapon.[citation needed]

I am delting this sentence and will replace it with a sum up of what the other to articles say. --Muz (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

scrap what i just said, im not sure what to do as if the information i found clashes with the info in that paragraph. I am not going to do anything at the moment as i dont know enough. --Muz (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Both articles lead back to this link.[3] It quotes both volumes of "History of Modern US Military Small Arms Ammunition" by F.W. Hackley, W.H. Woodin, & E.L. Scranton. These books are the most authoritative works on the subject in print. --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed "insurgent" to "combatant" as I felt that the later is a more neutral term.

--72.38.130.26 (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalisim on page, but I don't know where it comes from. 2/5/10

What vandalism? Roger (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going insane! I see "FUCK THE POLICE" in the Energy column, but I can't find that specific text ANYWHERE on Wikipedia, or in this page source, or in ANY of the unprotected transcluded templates (or ones those templates transclude.) I think I might be losing my mind! 216.222.236.140 (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Previous IP-signed comment was me, sorry. Dustin Howett (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Got it, it was vandalism on the Infobox firearm cartridge/Ballistics template that was cached in a change to this page. Dustin Howett (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The round was conceptualized during World War I by John Browning in response to a requirement for an anti-aircraft weapon.[citation needed] - it was actually designed as a long-range weapon for shooting at enemy observation balloons from the Allied side of the front lines, i.e., across no man's land. These balloons would be raised by the Germans ('the balloon going up' - hence the phrase) prior to an attack and some method of combating these was sought.

BTW, this origin for the gun/ammunition comes from Ian V. Hogg, although I can't remember which book of his it was in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I find that somewhat disappointing.  :)

(Given that .50 BMG is indeed geometrically congruent with .30-06, and this is the only pairing of calibers I know of for which this is true, it seems a shame not to mention it. :D ) Lihan161051 (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jaau/jaau0098.html
  • In .50 BMG on 2011-05-20 21:40:16, 404 Not found
  • In .50 BMG on 2011-05-31 13:09:46, 404 Not found

--

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.fcsa.org/visitors/matches.htm
  • In .50 BMG on 2011-05-20 21:40:16, 404 Not Found
  • In .50 BMG on 2011-05-31 13:09:57, 404 Not Found

--

Update needed: A McMillan Tac-50 .50 BMG sniper rifle was used by Canadian Army Corporal Rob Furlong of the PPCLI to achieve what was then the longest-range confirmed sniper kill in history, when he shot a Taliban combatant at 2,430 meters (2,657 yards) during the 2002 campaign in the Afghanistan War.[2]

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills it's now Corporal of Horse (CoH) Craig Harrison. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 80.150.244.150 (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• There's no need to update it since it says "to achieve what was then the longest-range confirmed sniper kill". It does not claim that it still is the longest one. Thomas.W (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

″The 0.30 in (7.7 mm) diameter sabot, which is designed to break up at the muzzle to release the penetrator, must also survive the gun environment until launch.″ The sabot is the casing around the sub-caliber penetrator, therefore it must be .50 cal, same as the inner diameter of the gun barrel. The penetrator, being-sub caliber, is what is almost certainly .30 cal. Could someone confirm this and update the page with the correct information. 75.72.94.182 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)